Violent/Gore Filled Games

[Dogg Thang]

And yet not every magazine is Playboy.

[Gerry Helmet]

But I bet they don't sell half as much, at least before tinternet was born....

Violence sells Video games, with tombraider take the shooting parts away and your left with exploring massive caverns and solving puzzles in the aim to solve a bigger anceint mystery. IMO the shooting parts broke the exploring bits up quite nicely, I imagine for me without them it would have been quite boring...

[MartyG]

Airbrush boobs at that ( or so I'm told ).

I've been wracking my brains trying to think of a games that's purely violent just for the sake of it, without being able to justify it either due to the premise of the game or the story that surrounds it, and I must say that I'm struggling quite a bit. Thrill Kill is one that pops in my head.

I couldn't include Mortal Kombat because that justifies the game by being a battle to death. We can exclude anything that's war related, because wars tend to include a lot of guns and death. We can exclude the horror genre because that's usually part of the story. We can even exclude Manhunt, again, because that's justified via the story. We can exclude stuff like Resident Evil and Dead Rising because you're fighting for survival. We can exclude GTA because you're a gang banga. We can exclude stuff like EFD because we're saving the earth, and they're ants.

Perhaps the issue is not with the violence itself, but how it's appropriated to things in a game. For example, is it more ok to kill non-humans, because they're non-humans or humans because they're evil or infected than it is to be violent to humans minding their own business ( such as in GTA )?

Or is it a case of realism? It's it better to have fantasy violence than something more realistic.

Just thinking aloud here really.

[MattyD]

Just putting the violence into a setting with the crap on the back of the box ("A fight to the death!!!" etc etc) doesn't justify the violence at all. It might explain why it's happening but it doesn't even begin to answer questions about the proportionatility of the violence, whether the ends justifies the means or whether it's even right to use violence to further your aims at all.

The grounds we might use to justify violence in a game are by no means concrete in the first place. Take the Splinter Cell games for instance - we automatically assume that Fisher's neck-snapping, head-shotting actions are just because he's a 'good guy', which we infer from his American / Western / Caucasianness. But what if you live in North Korea, and the Americans are you enemy? The media reaction to the various Jihadist mods and games available on the internet is a good case in point - to the media (and most members of the Western world) they are abhorrent but to their makers they may be no less justifiable than the last Ghost Recon game.

[MartyG]

The grounds we might use to justify violence in a game are by no means concrete in the first place. Take the Splinter Cell games for instance - we automatically assume that Fisher's neck-snapping, head-shotting actions are just because he's a 'good guy', which we infer from his American / Western / Caucasianness. But what if you live in North Korea, and the Americans are you enemy? The media reaction to the various Jihadist mods and games available on the internet is a good case in point - to the media (and most members of the Western world) they are abhorrent but to their makers they may be no less justifiable than the last Ghost Recon game.

Can't disagree with this at all - it's an interesting area of debate.

I personally don't really have an issue with violence in video games or any other media, due to the fact I know it isn't real.

Perhaps another question to ask is why people enjoy violent video games - I think maybe it's not violent video games that people enjoy, but games that play well that are violent. Which again goes back to my original premise that games generally aren't violent just for the sake of it.

Killing things usually involves a lot of blood and gore - I think maybe there'd be a bigger issue if people got off on the violence rather than the game itself.

I thought there'd be a bit more discussion on this topic actually :/

[SUMIRE]

I think some of the most scary games didnt have much blood in them, same with films. Too much blood now seems to make the experience less scary and almost comical and less realistic.

[Profit]

There aren't even that many violent games. <20 since the start of 2006 have got a BBFC 18.

[saif]

Plenty of people "get off" on the violence. I remember "soldier of Fortune" (I think) where the only new thing was being able to shootr body parts. That is not really new gameplay mechanics imho.

It is entirely dependent on how you class a "violent" game. But I think there are loads that are not 18s. I find them quite dull rather than shocking - I wish devs would actually do something interesting.

[MartyG]

By get off I mean people who fulfil fantasies via violent video games they play - if you're suggesting plenty of people do this then I find that quite frightning and wonder what your evidence for this is.

[Ady]

Violence and gore do have their place in games, but too often nowadays, they are used as an easy way of selling games to excitable teenage boys.

[domsalvia]

I've been having a good think on this subject and I've reached the point where I'm vaguely happy with my views about it all.

It really gets split down into two sections: Violence and Gore.

I'll start with the gore side of things 'cos that is, to my mind, the easier of the two. I view the excessive use of graphically showing the results of violence a little un-required. Not that I'm offended by it, but more confused as to the need to ram it down our throats. People may claim "realism" as a need for it, but the lack of spilled blood in combat hasn't stopped me enjoying The Twilight Princess any. If anything, there is an "Oooo" factor involved with violence that I know I am guilty of enjoying, but it's so short lived why bother? An example would be eating hearts in The Darkness.

The first time I ate a heart I was amused by the rag dolling of the body as you rip the it from the chest. And the second and third times too. By the time I hit the 300 hearts achievement It was just another action - the process meant nothing too me. Instead of ripping out and eating hearts it could have just as easily been some kind of spirit absorption thing, with an equally nice graphical effect to be impressed by the first time you see it. Admittedly I don't know the source comic so it may have been needed to tie it into the original, but I think it is safe to stand by the example raised as to the use of gory scenes and very simple alternatives. All the gore version had to offer is to limit the audience by netting the game a higher rating and losing people like my wife who was instantly put off by it, even though the strong narrative is usually the kind of thing she enjoys most in games and if not put off by the gore would have very much enjoyed The Darkness.

That said, a bit of gore, well placed at the right time in a game can make a big difference, but it is made a bit of a non-event by the use of gore throughout games. I mentioned the drilling for the Bioshock trailer (actively avoiding the demo - On holiday from Thursday and it'll be out by the time I get back - I must stay strong!) that I thought was a poor choice to represent the games content. All I'd heard about to that point was the amazing story, lush visuals and compelling alternative world and it was so jarring for me to think that a man with a bloody drill through his chest is the best representation for the game. I can however see that as being part of the game, I would just hope that it is rare and is used carefully to add an exclamation point to an encounter at some point mid game than be thrown away recklessly. The power such a moment would have in an otherwise mostly gore free game would really bring it home when it occurred. Is it hypocritical of me to ask "why the gore?" only to later suggest the intelligent use of hyper violence can make the game better? I don't think so.

In short Violence seems very much to be a check box for developers to tick in order to be "edgy" and to sell the games to clowns and Muppets who can't tell the difference between massive blood loss and actual mature content. Which allows me to slowly segway into the Violence part of the debate, while addressing "mature content".

Why has severed limbs and a good old spurt of red become the computer game equivalent of "mature"? Just what is so mature about it? Sure, it's not for kids, but I would describe it more as adult content than mature content. Why do we not treat real, emotional story lines, or stories that are deep with political intrigue and complex layers to be our mature content? Things young kids wouldn't enjoy because they wouldn't understand. Can anyone think of games where the narrative content makes a game inappropriate for children, and by that I don't mean they talk about sex and swear a bit, I mean actually addressing important issues as a central theme that you wouldn't necessarily want your kids to witness, or at the very least wouldn't expect them to understand? I'm drawing a blank right now, but I've always been a bit of a thicky.

Anyway, as planned, this leads nicely into Violence! Grr! Hit stuff! Fight the bad man! Shoot him quick!

What? Again?

People have mentioned that games tend to be about conflict and conflict leads to violence. I would argue that conflict leads to violence only if the people involved are too lazy or stupid to find an alternative. Think of some of the finest game that we all love and wish for more of. Old Lucasarts adventure games - they need no violence to have conflict. They only needed people with opposing desires. Think of the scene in KOTOR where you stood as judge upon two men and had to resolve their crime. Game actions like these, built around actually grown up, mature content.

I've no problem with violent games, not so much as the over use of gore at any rate. A good action game that gets the blood pumping is still good for me, but I am a little disappointed by lack of less violent games, an alternative when you want something different. I am well aware of the challenges involved with story pacing in a computer game where you are relying on the player to move the game forwards, not to mention the technical challenges of even making a game, let alone trying to fully integrate a professional story into it, but why such a lack of professional stories? My story line benchmark is this: "Does this sound like one of my old DnD story lines from when I was a big nerdy DM type at university?". If the answer is yes, then the writer has no right to actually call themselves a writer - I feel VERY strongly on this matter. I know I suck a fair bit at story writing and I demand more from so called professionals.

So then what am I actually asking for? I suppose a summary is in order.

Really, I would like a game with a storyline strong enough to hold up by itself, preferably with adult themes (no, not porn fan fiction :P), that has had a quality game wrapped around it. I would like a game with genuine social alternatives to violence. Multiple route games tend to go for Shoot, Sneak or Hack, but never enough social issues to make a more chatty route a possibility. I would like this game to use gore sparingly so when it does pop up I am truly shocked and/or surprised by it, not "oh look, he got a power drill in the face", as it was with The Darkness. And lastly, and most important of all, it must do all this and still be FUN!

Am I asking too much?




Bonus topic!
When will sex stop being treated as the dirty must avoid at all costs topic when violence is rampant? Hot Coffee? Snipe stringers heads off from afar? Fine! Consensual sex with an in game Girlfriend? Bans! How backwards is that? Make love not war!

That said if it did become a bit prevalent watch this forum for a similar whiny post from me about how "it's just not needed!"

[Concept]

Great post. I had problems with peoples' reaction to The Darkness myself (the skewering/heart ripping/execution moves/being able to kill civilians with them/drill scene/violence of the ending), though it was mostly in light of the Manhunt 2 debate at the time.

As for games which are adult... well, absolutely. I want more too.

We barely ever see 'adult' games in the sense that they handle their themes maturely and with a sense of purpose and reason. As for the social games you describe, well, the problem there is that high polished games cost lots of money to make, and the only way to fund skilled development teams is to crowd please. This invariably always comes back to the blockbuster boom-and-bust mentality, where the same generic ideas are trotted out time and time again.

The rise of the indie and the digital distribution network, if handled properly across all formats, will hopefully offer some alternative to this. We won't see any impact on polished 3D story-driven games though for quite a while until the cost of using tools comes down. Eventually it will happen... high-end engines will come down in cost in a few years, and if more emphasis is placed on user generated content, machinima and amateur projects will become more popular and expansive.

Until that happens, we'll keep getting the one-offs and the dozens of gratuitious violent-filled games which are directly aimed at pleasing the crowd.

Nintendo's casual market approach, coupled with Sony's user-generated content ambitions and Micosoft's more hardcore XNA approach would be the ideal setup really. Covering all bases.

As things stand though with regards to violence, non-conflict story driven games are a niche sector of the market and in the minority. Adventure games may return the older the gaming demographic gets (when there's a bigger, older base to support games which don't appeal to the 15-25 year old male mindset), but that requires the market to expand, and for the cost of development to effectively decrease so more talent can experiment without betting the horse on everything.